Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-30-2016, 04:56 AM   #21
Gollum
 
Gollum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
I'd also consider giving a bonus form various advantages that would be relevant to keeping calm in combat situations e.g. combat reflexes etc
Yes. That would make sense!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
I know, my question is why is it an exception? Other then for the reason it can't exist unless you make it an exception to the system premise that everyone knows what their opponents are doing in system terms.
That is, to my humble opinion, the right answer. Feint is an exception because it wouldn't work at all if it was obvious. And also because the feint rules contain their own roll to see if the defender notice it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Now all this is fine because all the this is a question of game balance not reality, and that's fine (it's extra work to add this stuff in, and even ignoring that it only going to be appropriate for some games styles anyway).
I fully do agree. My players never complained about not knowing which kind of maneuver their foes chose ... And they always hesitated before choosing all-out attack just because even if the adversary doesn't immediately choose an all-out attack after that, it remains very dangerous: you don't have any defense, even against ordinary attacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Yep, alternatively you could add the same bonus to the perception roll. And expanding that thought, I'd possibly give a penailty to the perception roll for assessing a deceptive attack equal to the defence penalty it gives
I think it would add unnecessary complexity. The fact that Telegraphic Attack is obvious to anyone is precisely in its definition. And the drawback of the bonus (the bonus to the adversary's defense roll) is sufficient.

Now, if a character wanted to make an all-out and telegraphic attack, I would allow a Perception based skill roll to notice that it is also an all-out attack. But I wouldn't add any bonus to it. Noticing that it is also an all-out attack rather than just a mere telegraphic attack is not necessarily more obvious.

Likewise, for deceptive attacks, I wouldn't require any Perception based skill roll. The penalty to the defense, and the penalty to the attack as a drawback, perfectly do the job to my humble opinion. Knowing that it was a deceptive attack rather than an ordinary attack wouldn't change these penalties ...
__________________
My GURPS fan's website (just a beginning at the moment):
http://gollumdeux.wix.com/gollumsgurpspages

Last edited by Gollum; 10-30-2016 at 05:04 AM.
Gollum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 06:39 AM   #22
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollum View Post
Yes. That would make sense!


That is, to my humble opinion, the right answer. Feint is an exception because it wouldn't work at all if it was obvious. And also because the feint rules contain their own roll to see if the defender notice it.


I fully do agree. My players never complained about not knowing which kind of maneuver their foes chose ... And they always hesitated before choosing all-out attack just because even if the adversary doesn't immediately choose an all-out attack after that, it remains very dangerous: you don't have any defense, even against ordinary attacks.
Yep


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollum View Post
I think it would add unnecessary complexity. The fact that Telegraphic Attack is obvious to anyone is precisely in its definition. And the drawback of the bonus (the bonus to the adversary's defense roll) is sufficient.

Now, if a character wanted to make an all-out and telegraphic attack, I would allow a Perception based skill roll to notice that it is also an all-out attack. But I wouldn't add any bonus to it. Noticing that it is also an all-out attack rather than just a mere telegraphic attack is not necessarily more obvious.

Likewise, for deceptive attacks, I wouldn't require any Perception based skill roll. The penalty to the defense, and the penalty to the attack as a drawback, perfectly do the job to my humble opinion. Knowing that it was a deceptive attack rather than an ordinary attack wouldn't change these penalties ...
Ah I wasn't think in terms of a perception roll just to see if it was telegraphic or deceptive (as you say that's obvious) but adjusting the perception roll to see what else they are. I.e a telegraphic defensive attack, or a deceptive AoA.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 08:57 AM   #23
Gollum
 
Gollum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Ah I wasn't think in terms of a perception roll just to see if it was telegraphic or deceptive (as you say that's obvious) but adjusting the perception roll to see what else they are. I.e a telegraphic defensive attack, or a deceptive AoA.
Yes. I did understand it. But as I said, I wouldn't add any bonus here. Noticing that it is a Telegraphic attack is obvious. But noticing that it is also another maneuver isn't more obvious because it is a Telegraphic attack, in my humble opinion.

Now, that is just a matter of point of view - I have no real argument to defend what I say here.
__________________
My GURPS fan's website (just a beginning at the moment):
http://gollumdeux.wix.com/gollumsgurpspages
Gollum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 11:18 AM   #24
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollum View Post
Yes. I did understand it. But as I said, I wouldn't add any bonus here. Noticing that it is a Telegraphic attack is obvious. But noticing that it is also another maneuver isn't more obvious because it is a Telegraphic attack, in my humble opinion.

Now, that is just a matter of point of view - I have no real argument to defend what I say here.
Ah Ok sorry I get what you mean now

I guess the way I see it is the attack will be what ever it is (Committed, Defensive, AoA with a FP thrown in etc) Telegraphic is just the way its being done. And to me if you do something in a telegraphic way your making it easier for others to see what your doing rather just making it easier to spot that your doing it in way that's easier to spot (erm IYSIM)

So what do you think of the idea about a deceptive option being harder to spot?

But I think you and I are pretty much on the same wave length here, so yeah no real point of contention at all.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 11:33 AM   #25
Gollum
 
Gollum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
And to me if you do something in a telegraphic way your making it easier for others to see what your doing rather just making it easier to spot that your doing it in way that's easier to spot (erm IYSIM)
It makes sense, indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
So what do you think of the idea about a deceptive option being harder to spot?
I think that if a GM made Telegraphic + Other Maneuver easier to notice, he should also make Deceptive + Other Maneuver harder to notice.

Having said that, it adds one more level of complexity to the game. You go from one more roll to one more roll with modifiers. And even if modifiers sound to be easy in theory, they are always less easy than a roll without any modifier ... especially in the heat of a battle with several PCs and NPCs to handle.
__________________
My GURPS fan's website (just a beginning at the moment):
http://gollumdeux.wix.com/gollumsgurpspages
Gollum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 01:05 PM   #26
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollum View Post
It makes sense, indeed.


I think that if a GM made Telegraphic + Other Maneuver easier to notice, he should also make Deceptive + Other Maneuver harder to notice.

Having said that, it adds one more level of complexity to the game. You go from one more roll to one more roll with modifiers. And even if modifiers sound to be easy in theory, they are always less easy than a roll without any modifier ... especially in the heat of a battle with several PCs and NPCs to handle.
Yeah that's certainly true (I guess I was trying to bring in a compromise that some actions are easier to read than others)

Last edited by Tomsdad; 10-31-2016 at 02:37 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2016, 01:34 AM   #27
Gollum
 
Gollum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Yeah that's certainly true (I guess I was trying to bring in a compromise that some action are easier to read than others)
Which is surely true, in a realistic point of view.
__________________
My GURPS fan's website (just a beginning at the moment):
http://gollumdeux.wix.com/gollumsgurpspages
Gollum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2016, 04:09 AM   #28
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollum View Post
Which is surely true, in a realistic point of view.
But you are right it would be more work/detail!
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
active defense, basic set, turn sequence

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.